Add client note

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds that it wraps Clients.addNote and that staff_id defaults to BLESTA_STAFF_ID. This is useful but modest context; no hidden side effects or permission requirements are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by the underlying API method and default value. It contains some redundancy with the schema but no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description plus annotations adequately cover purpose, example usage, and a key default for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema. It does not describe return values or side effects beyond creation, which is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter already has a clear description, so the description adds little beyond restating the staff_id default. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with the specific verb 'Record' and identifies the resource, 'a staff note on a client account', with an example use case. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling 'get_client_notes' and other client management tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The example 'e.g. summary of a support interaction' provides clear context for when this tool should be used. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.